Do sleep distubances impact the qualrity of life and cognition similarly in men and women with Parkinson’s disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Much research has been conducted on the influence of sex-related differences on Parkinson‘s disease (PD). While men are approximately 1.5 to 2 times more likely to develop the disease and exhibit more tremors, rigidity, cognitive decline, and autonomic dysfunctions, women report more postural instability, depression, anxiety, and pain. Despite sleep disturbances being very prevalent in patients with PD, little is known about the differences when it comes to the quality of sleep experienced between men and women and the impact of the differences if any on their quality of life and cognition. Objective: To compare the quality of sleep between men and women with PD and to assess its correlation with the quality of life and cognition according to sex-related differences. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study composed of 73 individuals (50 men and 23 women) diagnosed with idiopathic PD, at a mild to moderate stage, and without cognitive deficits. Quality of sleep was assessed using the Parkinson’s Disease Sleep Scale (PDSS-2), the Pittsburgh Quality of sleep Index (PSQI), and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Individuals scoring above 5 on the PSQI were classified as having "poor sleep." Cognition and quality of life were evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the Parkinson’s Disease Quality of Life Scale (PDQ-39), respectively. A significance level of 5% was adopted for the analyses. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CAAE: 54383021.8.0000.5231). Results: Regarding sleep classification, 72% of men and 52.2% of women were classified as having poor sleep quality. There was no difference in the total scores of the sleep scales between men and women. The only difference detected was that men had worse scores in the daytime dysfunction domain of the PSQI (p=0.015). In the correlation analysis between sleep and quality of life, there was a moderate correlation between the total PDSS-2 and PDQ-39 in both groups (Men: r=0.66; p< 0.001 - Women: r=0.61; p=0.002), and between the PSQI and PDQ-39 only in men (r=0.46; p=0.001). Concerning daytime sleepiness and the quality of life, there was a moderate correlation between the ESS and PDQ-39 in women (r=0.51; p=0.013) and a weak correlation in men (r=0.37; p=0.007). Regarding cognition, a moderate correlation was observed between the total PDSS-2 and the naming domain of the MoCA in men (r=-0.47; p<0.001) and the total PSQI with the abstraction domain in women (r=0.64; p=0.001). Conclusion: In this study, a difference was observed in the daytime dysfunction domain, with men scoring worse compared to women, indicating the impact of sleep on daily functionality. Additionally, men and women with better quality of sleep exhibited signs of a better quality of life. Finally, regarding cognition, men with better quality sleep performed better in the naming domain, while women with better quality sleep performed better in the abstraction domain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".